Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Nev.. on 12 Feb 2010 04:10 theo wrote: > On Feb 11, 3:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> theo wrote: > >>> Get back under your bridge Nev. >> Who's trolling? What a copout. You still haven't described how an >> independant candidate is equally advantaged. > > Under our system an independant or new party has to get 50%+1 support > for their initiatives in one electorate. In a proportional system they > only need to get 1% support from the nation. Under the current system, an independant needs to gain 50%+1 support in a single electorate. I would guess that most independants who are elected to parliament are well known in their community, have the trust of the community, and probably run on a platform of local issues (after all they don't need an answer to everything, they'll never form a government). Under a proportional system, that person would need to get 1% support from the whole country. Independants have fuckall chance of gaining that sort of support across the whole electorate. Their chances of being elected would be greatly reduced. :) Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on 12 Feb 2010 04:12 theo wrote: > On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: > >> It sounds like you don't know what independent means. Are you >> suggesting that the members of the Greens Party and the Democrats Party >> are "independant". The first line of the wiki entry for "Independent >> (politician)" sums it up. In politics, an independent is a politician >> who is not affiliated with any political party. > > And doesn't owe any other party for their preferences? You've probably voted once or twice. You know how it works. Don't pretend that someone else chooses your preferences for you. Haven't we already gone through this? All this talk of preference deals is a non-issue. Voters choose their own preferences in the voting booth. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on 12 Feb 2010 06:01 Nev.. wrote: > theo wrote: >> On Feb 11, 3:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>> theo wrote: >> >>>> Get back under your bridge Nev. >>> Who's trolling? What a copout. You still haven't described how an >>> independant candidate is equally advantaged. >> >> Under our system an independant or new party has to get 50%+1 support >> for their initiatives in one electorate. In a proportional system they >> only need to get 1% support from the nation. > > Under the current system, an independant needs to gain 50%+1 support in > a single electorate. I would guess that most independants who are > elected to parliament are well known in their community, have the trust > of the community, and probably run on a platform of local issues (after > all they don't need an answer to everything, they'll never form a > government). Under a proportional system, that person would need to get > 1% support from the whole country. Independants have fuckall chance of > gaining that sort of support across the whole electorate. Their chances > of being elected would be greatly reduced. :) There have been cases of independants in the upper house. G-S
From: G-S on 12 Feb 2010 06:02 Nev.. wrote: > theo wrote: >> On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> >>> It sounds like you don't know what independent means. Are you >>> suggesting that the members of the Greens Party and the Democrats Party >>> are "independant". The first line of the wiki entry for "Independent >>> (politician)" sums it up. In politics, an independent is a politician >>> who is not affiliated with any political party. >> >> And doesn't owe any other party for their preferences? > > You've probably voted once or twice. You know how it works. Don't > pretend that someone else chooses your preferences for you. Haven't we > already gone through this? All this talk of preference deals is a > non-issue. Voters choose their own preferences in the voting booth. > We went through it yes, but you still aren't admitting that the major parties do 'de facto' choose the preferences of everyone who votes above the line. G-S
From: Nev.. on 12 Feb 2010 06:54
G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> theo wrote: >>> On Feb 11, 3:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>> theo wrote: >>> >>>>> Get back under your bridge Nev. >>>> Who's trolling? What a copout. You still haven't described how an >>>> independant candidate is equally advantaged. >>> >>> Under our system an independant or new party has to get 50%+1 support >>> for their initiatives in one electorate. In a proportional system they >>> only need to get 1% support from the nation. >> >> Under the current system, an independant needs to gain 50%+1 support >> in a single electorate. I would guess that most independants who are >> elected to parliament are well known in their community, have the >> trust of the community, and probably run on a platform of local issues >> (after all they don't need an answer to everything, they'll never form >> a government). Under a proportional system, that person would need to >> get 1% support from the whole country. Independants have fuckall >> chance of gaining that sort of support across the whole electorate. >> Their chances of being elected would be greatly reduced. :) > > There have been cases of independants in the upper house. There may very well have been and that is very nice but is totally irrelevant because a)in every (or almost every) instance Theo has been talking about the lower house not the upper house, and b) the upper house in almost every State, and the Commonwealth, use proportional representation, but not the proportional voting system which Theo is talking about. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 |